Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background The Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program offers early detection opportunities for people at high risk of lung cancer. However, the stigma associated with smoking – central to screening eligibility – may deter screening participation.Aims To understand the current social and discursive context, a media content analysis of Australian newspaper articles was conducted to examine how people who smoke are portrayed.Methods An online search using Dow-Jones Factiva identified Australian newspaper articles published between 2nd May 2023 (announcement of the Program) and 31st December 2024, to provide a contextual anchor to interpret and apply findings. Eligible articles (n = 174) underwent qualitative content analysis to classify representations of people who smoke and to assess language for stigma based on established guidelines.Results Seventeen representations of people who smoke were categorised. Most common was people who smoke as “supported to potentially stop smoking” (42.5%), often emphasised by encouragement to seek smoking cessation support. Many representations were understanding, including portrayals of people who smoke as “vulnerable youth” (32.8%) or “addicted to nicotine” (22.4%). Negative representations were less frequent but included people who smoke as a “selfish polluter” (7.5%) or “drain on the economy” (4.0%). Person-first language appeared consistently in 47.8% of articles, 28.7% used an empathetic tone towards people who smoke, however 18.7% used judgemental or blaming sentiments.Discussion Findings highlight instances of stigmatising representation of people who smoke which could perpetuate negative public discourse. Use of standard, person-first language is encouraged, such as promotion of evidence-based language guidelines and strengths-based messaging, complemented by broader community-based interventions, to support respectful and consistent public discourse to address societal-level stigma.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rose et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: